Did they type "Write a news article make no mistakes?" and hit Publish
or
Did they use it to find secondary sources for a set of details to then manually go check them? Or use it for copy-editing or have a discussion with a frontier model about the best term to describe a concept (something I find them very good at!)? Or a myriad of such interventional uses.
Are those considered the same by the audience? Was the difference explained in this survey? I'm betting the audience is a lot more accepting of the latter and the former is what everyone imagines "Use Gen-AI" means and words like "mostly human generated with some AI help" don't really capture the difference OR value.
I hate to be the "there is nuance" guy, but...isn't there significant nuance here?
What does AI for news even mean? In what world are people using it for search, but not for news? Search looks at and summarizes the news! If I ask why Nvidia dropped today, is that the news?
So glad the public hates this stuff in journalism. I hope all the news agencies that use it are left with the same kind of remnant audience that found Q-Anon so inspiring.
It’s just the hype train is excessive and in everyone’s faces and anything that’s like that genuinely becomes hated.
Imagine if I saved the lives of hundreds of people everyday. And I would throw this fact in your face everyday via TikTok, email spam, YouTube, social media.
Pretty soon you’ll become sick of it. You’ll not care for anyones life. Thats what is happening with ai. Ai is genuinely from a logical standpoint, incredible. But all of that is diluted by overhype.
Except AI isnt saving lives. It isnt even usually improving lives. For the most part it is being used to justify laying people off, to heap more responsibility on those that remain, to destroy the livelihood of artists, and to flood public spaces with slop. Even if the capabilities are incredible, the average lived experience of it is awful.
This is an hallucination. We all know humans hallucinate just like LLMs and this is another form of it.
It’s like if I asked you if you enjoy talking shit about people or saying things and gossiping without people knowing about it.
Most people would say no they don’t enjoy it. But most people would be lying. Not lying to you but lying to themselves. It’s one of the most obvious lies because everyone can definitely think back and recall themselves talking shit.
People say they don’t want to use LLMs and they say they hate ai and they say they appreciate human art and effort and human endeavor and all of this is true and at the same time not true as the same people who say they don’t like it use it all the time. It’s both true and not true. Human brains like LLMs did not evolve to enforce strict logical conclusions because such a thing is not absolutely necessary for survival. You can hold contradictory opinions and beliefs in your mind.
AI is good for consuming public information, not for producing public information.
But what does "used Gen AI" in an article mean?
Did they type "Write a news article make no mistakes?" and hit Publish
or
Did they use it to find secondary sources for a set of details to then manually go check them? Or use it for copy-editing or have a discussion with a frontier model about the best term to describe a concept (something I find them very good at!)? Or a myriad of such interventional uses.
Are those considered the same by the audience? Was the difference explained in this survey? I'm betting the audience is a lot more accepting of the latter and the former is what everyone imagines "Use Gen-AI" means and words like "mostly human generated with some AI help" don't really capture the difference OR value.
I hate to be the "there is nuance" guy, but...isn't there significant nuance here?
What does AI for news even mean? In what world are people using it for search, but not for news? Search looks at and summarizes the news! If I ask why Nvidia dropped today, is that the news?
Irresponsible and dead LLM/SI/AI is not an information gateway, and will never be. Limited/censored/opinionated or not.
People is the gateway, their effort, their experience, to learn from.
So glad the public hates this stuff in journalism. I hope all the news agencies that use it are left with the same kind of remnant audience that found Q-Anon so inspiring.
"Cigarettes are incredible. Audiences don't want them"
Ai genuinely is incredible. Think about it.
It’s just the hype train is excessive and in everyone’s faces and anything that’s like that genuinely becomes hated.
Imagine if I saved the lives of hundreds of people everyday. And I would throw this fact in your face everyday via TikTok, email spam, YouTube, social media.
Pretty soon you’ll become sick of it. You’ll not care for anyones life. Thats what is happening with ai. Ai is genuinely from a logical standpoint, incredible. But all of that is diluted by overhype.
Except AI isnt saving lives. It isnt even usually improving lives. For the most part it is being used to justify laying people off, to heap more responsibility on those that remain, to destroy the livelihood of artists, and to flood public spaces with slop. Even if the capabilities are incredible, the average lived experience of it is awful.
> Ai genuinely is incredible. Think about it.
It is literally incredible, that is, the claims people make about it are not believable. It simply does not do the magical stuff people claim it does.
This is an hallucination. We all know humans hallucinate just like LLMs and this is another form of it.
It’s like if I asked you if you enjoy talking shit about people or saying things and gossiping without people knowing about it.
Most people would say no they don’t enjoy it. But most people would be lying. Not lying to you but lying to themselves. It’s one of the most obvious lies because everyone can definitely think back and recall themselves talking shit.
People say they don’t want to use LLMs and they say they hate ai and they say they appreciate human art and effort and human endeavor and all of this is true and at the same time not true as the same people who say they don’t like it use it all the time. It’s both true and not true. Human brains like LLMs did not evolve to enforce strict logical conclusions because such a thing is not absolutely necessary for survival. You can hold contradictory opinions and beliefs in your mind.